Panel says ‘no’ to C97

By Kath Gannaway
In a report released last week the three person panel chaired by John Keaney, effectively sent the council back to the drawing board, saying Amendment C97 failed the elementary test of any planning scheme amendment – strong strategic justification.
The proposed amendment represents the most significant change to Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme since it was introduced in 2000, and would implement the 2009 Housing Strategy and the 2002 Neighbourhood Character Study, as well as streamlining controls over minimum block sizes.
More than 150 written submissions were made to the Panel and 30 people, including representatives of Yarra Ranges Council, planning consultants environment and community groups, and residents were heard at the seven day panel hearing late last year.
On the housing strategy, they stated that the draft 2007 draft strategy was more robust than the adopted 2009 version which they said had “been seriously eroded” and was beset with problems.
Ironically, the panel accuses Yarra Ranges Council of an unbalanced response to “exhaustive community consultation” on the 2007 Housing Strategy which resulted in 18 proposed consolidation areas across the shire being reduced to 10 including Mount Evelyn.
While community consultation was part of the assessment matrix, the panel said it should not be the determining factor.
“ … it needs to be balanced against the admirable social and physical objectives that the original strategy purported to achieve,” and “should not be viewed only through the narrow prism of local opposition.”
The panel noted as “odd” that Belgrave, Tecoma and Upwey, served by a rail line were excluded as potential consolidation areas and have been designated as ‘least change’ areas.
They said there were good examples of medium density housing in the corridor.
“To preclude such redevelopment, even as an option, in an area dominated by detached housing, seems to undermine the stated desire of housing diversity,” the panel stated.
Monbulk remains in the Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ)due to large parts of the town being without reticulated sewerage.
Areas of Mount Evelyn earmarked for ‘consolidation’ in 2007 are also now identified as “least change”, but according to the panel have potential for small scale redevelopment.
The panel said the change of plan was not only a loss of opportunity for housing diversity, but also removed consideration of the appropriateness or otherwise of the LDRZ zoning close to Mt Evelyn township.
The Panel described the LDRZ as a de facto minimal change area with state planning restrictions dictating a 4000 square metre minimum subdivision rendering vast areas of the shire as unable, or unlikely, to be more intensively redeveloped.
The panel was also critical of the State Government Department of Planning and Community Development which gave the go-ahead for public exhibition saying their authorisation of the housing strategy component of C97 brought into serious question the rigours of its analysis.
The panel gave two options for Amendment C97. Option one, that council revisit the strategic basis of its housing, character and settlement strategies, keep the existing Municipal Strategy Statement and maintain the existing residential zones. Discretionary provisions for minimum lot sizes would stay and use overlays to protect vegetation.
Option two would retain some of the policy parts of C97 but none of the MSS changes identified as they are linked to vital strategies which the panel suggests should be deleted or substantially changed.
Yarra Ranges Council did not respond to questions on Amendment C97 in time for the Mail’s deadline.